3. Become an Ethnographer
“You can observe a lot just by watching.”
—Yogi Berra
In the past, companies relied heavily on focus groups to conduct marketing research. They brought consumers to their offices, and they asked them for extensive feedback on new products and services before going to market. Today, many firms have shifted their approach, relying less on focus groups and much more on direct observation of how consumers behave in their natural environments—in their homes, workplaces, automobiles, and the like. For example, consider Kimberly Clark, producer of the Huggies brand of diapers and related baby-care products. The firm’s researchers have learned a great deal by watching many parents changing their babies. During one study, they realized that most moms and dads struggled to hold their babies still while reaching for the diaper, wipes, articles of clothing, and the like. The problem became particularly acute for parents who were “on the go,” changing their infants at a location outside the home. Therefore, the firm redesigned its travel pack for Huggies Baby Wipes. The new packaging enables parents to remove a wipe with only one hand, thus enabling the moms and dads to always keep their other hand on the child. Similarly, the company’s researchers watched as parents had difficulty opening Huggies Baby Wash while bathing their children. Again, the moms and dads had only one hand free, as the other hand tried to prevent the infant from falling over in the bathtub. Thus, the firm redesigned the bottle so that a parent could open it and dispense the liquid with only one hand.1
Other firms derive new product ideas from similar observational studies of consumer behavior. Microsoft visits consumers’ homes and watches them work and play on their personal computers. The firm provides families with free hardware and software. In return, it gains permission to observe how they use these products over a lengthy period of time (observations every few months for two years in some instances). General Mills watches how people consume and shop for their products. The firm even operates its own grocery store, called the Corner Market. The general public cannot shop there; instead, General Mills invites and reimburses consumers to shop there while the firm’s researchers observe them. Arm & Hammer, the producer of baking soda and related odor-control products, visits consumers’ homes and observes everything from their refrigerators to their litter boxes. In one study, they noticed many cat owners failing to spot large clumps of wet litter. Therefore, they developed a new product that turns blue when damp so that homeowners can know when it’s time to clean the litter box.2
Proctor & Gamble has developed one of the most extensive observational research programs in the world. The firm’s CEO, A. G. Lafley, learned the value of watching how consumers behave, rather than simply asking them what they want, when he accepted an assignment in Japan in the early 1990s. At the time, he did not have access to extensive market research data in Japan. He had to find another way to learn what product innovations would meet consumers’ needs. He remembers concluding, “Executives in the U.S. were buried under consumer research data. I don’t think the answers are just in the numbers. You have to get out and look.”3
Today, Proctor & Gamble’s employees immerse themselves in their customers’ lives through two innovative programs. In the firm’s Livin’ It initiative, employees visit people in their homes, and they join them on trips to the supermarket. In the Workin’ It program, employees spend time behind the checkout counters at various retail stores. As Lafley puts it, “Richer, more actionable insights are identified from what is learned in the context of the real world.”4 The firm has increased its expenditures on such immersive research techniques by more than 500% over the past decade.5
Marketing experts describe this type of observational work as ethnographic research. The term comes from the fields of anthropology and sociology. Ethnographers, such as noted cultural anthropologist Margaret Mead, study groups, organizations, and cultures through close observation of people in their natural environment. In her famous work Coming of Age in Samoa, Mead wrote about the lives of adolescent girls and their transition to adulthood. She immersed herself in the Samoan society for five months in the 1920s, and from her systematic observations, she wrote a groundbreaking book about how culture impacts the socioemotional development of young people.6 Today, ethnographers study not only other cultures, but also a range of other phenomena, from workers in business organizations to members of street gangs.7
Why have marketers adopted the methodology of Mead and her fellow ethnographers? Pure and simple, they understand that people often say one thing and do another. Asking individuals questions in focus groups may yield answers that are inconsistent with how those consumers actually behave in their homes or at retail stores. Marketing scholar Gerald Zaltman, a critic of focus-group techniques, notes that “The correlation between stated intent and actual behavior is usually low and negative.”8 He points out that 80% of new product launches fail, despite being evaluated through focus-group techniques. Americus Reed II, marketing professor at the Wharton School of Business, offers his own word of caution, using a vivid metaphor: “A focus group is like a chainsaw. If you know what you are doing, it’s very useful and effective. If you don’t, you could lose a limb.”9
How does ethnographic marketing inform our understanding of how leaders can become more effective problem-finders? Asking your employees questions, holding town-hall meetings, talking to customers and suppliers—all these activities certainly provide senior leaders with useful information at times. You may discover key problems and identify competitive threats through these discussions. Courageous subordinates may bring forward some bad news, or blow the whistle on activities that could compromise the firm’s reputation and image. However, leaders must proceed with caution. People will say one thing, yet do another. They often will not intend to deceive; they may not even realize that they act differently than they say. Worse yet, the gap between talk and behavior typically widens when individuals come together in group discussions. The presence and influence of others around us cause us to describe our behavior even more inaccurately than we normally do.
Firsthand observation may yield very different insights about the activities and behaviors of employees, customers, suppliers, competitors, and strategic partners. Simply talking with others may cause leaders to proceed down the wrong path. You may hear about problems that, in fact, do not pose much of a threat at all. Meanwhile, you may not hear about problems that could have a great impact on the organization. Watching how the organization actually functions can be a very powerful and illuminating learning experience—and a far more accurate one. Firsthand observation—a simple version of ethnography—must become part of every leader’s toolkit. To serve as effective problem-finders, we need to “get out and look,” as A. G. Lafley has noted.
Proctor & Gamble does not simply leave this observational work to its research professionals in the marketing department. The firm’s executives have become ethnographers and anthropologists too. Senior leaders leave their offices and go out into the field regularly so that they can see the problems and product flaws that must be addressed to satisfy customer needs. Firsthand observation of people in their natural context has become a critical problem-finding tool at P&G. By discovering problems and needs proactively, the firm has driven product improvements and innovations that have led to robust revenue growth throughout this decade.
Proctor & Gamble makes firsthand observation a responsibility of each of its senior leaders. According to Thomas Kinder, a vice president responsible for innovation at the firm, all executives must go on two home visits and two shopping trips with customers each year.10 These interactions take place around the globe. As Chairman of the Board and CEO, Lafley too takes part in these home visits and shopping trips with consumers. As Forbes magazine explained, “Like the monarch in Mark Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, Lafley often makes house calls incognito to find out what’s on the mind of his subjects.”11
Kinder explains that he has learned a great deal watching people shop in various countries. He says that he gained a new perspective on consumer decision-making from these visits, insights he could not have gleaned from examining mounds of data back in his office in Cincinnati, Ohio. Kinder feels that these direct observations keep him connected to the marketplace far more than anything else he could do. He and other P&G executives spot problems and identify opportunities for improvement each time they venture into the field. Moreover, executives come to truly believe in the power of ethnographic research. Therefore, they more readily endorse the innovations that result from this anthropological work being done by their marketing experts.12
Why must leaders become astute observers to spot problems proactively, rather than simply asking questions and inviting comments? Let’s delve deeper to understand why people say one thing and do another. Many reasons exist for this gap between statements and behavior—ranging from the behavior of the questioner to the workings of the unconscious mind.
When speaking with colleagues or customers, we may pose questions that elicit the responses we would like to hear. The answers may not reflect what people actually believe or what is actually taking place in the organization. Let’s face it—leaders often seek validation from their subordinates, more so than unvarnished advice. Sometimes, we simply word questions in a way that drives responses in a certain direction or that narrows the scope of dialogue that follows. We do so intentionally at times, and unknowingly on other occasions.
Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus has done influential research on the subject of leading questions—specifically, how small changes in wording make a big difference. In one study, she showed a group of students a video of an automobile accident in which one driver runs through a stop sign, turning right into busy traffic and causing a five-car collision. After showing the video, she distributed a survey to the students. She asked half the students, “How fast was Car A going when it ran the stop sign?” She asked the other half, “How fast was Car A going when it turned right?” Loftus then asked everyone, “Did you see a stop sign for Car A?” Fifty-three percent of the students in the first group answered that they had seen the stop sign, yet only 35% of the students in the second group indicated that they had noticed it. Loftus concludes that we can affect responses by including or excluding crucial presuppositions in our questions. She defines a presupposition as “a condition that must hold in order for the question to be contextually appropriate.” In this case, one question presupposes the existence of the stop sign.13
In a subsequent experiment, Loftus shows how even false presuppositions can distort responses. She again showed a video of an automobile accident. This time, she asked half the students, “How fast was the white sports car going when it passed the barn while traveling along the country road?” In fact, the video showed no barn along the street. The other half received the same question, except without mention of the barn. Loftus then asked all the students, “Did you see a barn?” Roughly six times as many students in the first group than in the second indicated that they had seen a barn in the video. Insertion of the false presupposition had distorted people’s recall and response.14
Many of us include presuppositions in our questions at times, and thus we may word our questions in ways that may distort the responses we receive. Presuppositions do not have to be as blatant as those in Professor Loftus’ research. They often come in the form of a taken-for-granted assumption that we insert into questions. For instance, an executive might ask, “How much will revenue rise if we cut prices?” The executive not only has assumed that consumers will buy more products when prices fall, but that the increased volume will more than compensate for the decreased revenue per unit.
In many cases, leading questions come in the form of a request for an endorsement of a particular course of action. One might say, “Do you agree that we should make this acquisition?” Or, you might be even more forceful: “You agree with this acquisition, don’t you?” That wording certainly does not invite a wide-ranging discussion of divergent perspectives; in fact, it seems to actively discourage the expression of dissenting views. The respondent may have crucial information about the pitfalls of this acquisition, or the problems currently taking place at the target firm, but these issues are less likely to surface given the form of the question.
Leaders often solicit feedback from others in groups, both large and small. They attend meetings, hold town-hall forums, and perhaps host lunches with groups of employees. They interact with teams of people when they visit customers and suppliers as well. Unfortunately, group dynamics often cause people to say things that may not reflect how they actually behave. How does being in a group setting distort people’s responses to a leader’s inquiries?
First, a few loud voices, or perhaps a table-thumper or two, certainly can easily quash the level of candid discussion within a group. These individuals can dominate the airtime, making it difficult for others to join the discussion. A vociferous individual may cause the conversation to focus narrowly on his or her preferred topic, and combativeness may lead to some uncomfortable tension with senior leaders in the room. That tension can certainly quiet a room in a hurry.
Second, individuals may not want to disclose their preferences or opinions in front of others. That hesitancy may be most pronounced if they do not have close relationships with the others in that forum. For instance, marketers find that focus group participants sometimes feel reluctant to disclose their tastes, needs, and desires in front of strangers. The lack of interpersonal trust drives a wedge between what people say and their actual behavior. At a forum, such as a town-hall meeting, employees may face similar concerns. They may be together with people in other units of the organization, with whom they have not worked closely. The room also may contain managers from multiple levels of the hierarchy, including the direct supervisors of frontline employees. Thus, people may not speak freely when invited to do so by senior leaders.
Finally, marketers have learned that individuals distort their true preferences in some cases because they are concerned about how they are presenting themselves to others. People worry about whether their views will be considered socially acceptable, and they try to portray a certain image to others in the group. For instance, a consumer may not disclose that she smokes if she senses that others in a group disapprove of cigarettes. Marketers found a particularly striking result with regard to advertisements that disparage competitors. In focus groups, individuals often do not admit to enjoying these ads, while in fact, research shows that these types of pitches are very effective.15
People often say one thing when confronted with an abstract idea and then act in a different manner when that idea becomes a reality for them. Marketers, for instance, find that individuals sometimes offer inaccurate responses because they do not have experience using a particular product or service. Seeing it for the first time in a focus group, they offer an immediate reaction as to whether they might purchase the item. Yet they may not actually choose the product once they become more familiar with it. Robbie Blinkoff, a managing partner at Context-Based Research Group, explains: “When you ask somebody a question, they’ll have an opinion, and they may know absolutely nothing about it, or have never experienced it. It’s abstracted from their reality.”16 Similarly, employees, suppliers, or strategic partners may offer feedback when presented with a new idea, but at that moment, it might still be a rather intangible and theoretical concept. Their reactions may change when they have actually garnered hands-on experience with the work associated with that proposed course of action.
Gerald Zaltman’s research similarly suggests that the discrepancy between saying and doing may be completely unintentional. He points to the role of the unconscious mind in driving our actions. Put simply, Zaltman has concluded that customers may not always be able to discern what they want: “Unconscious thoughts are the most accurate predictors of what people will actually do. In the space of five or ten minutes in a focus group, which is the average airtime per person, you can’t possibly get at one person’s unconscious thinking.”17 Employees, suppliers, and other constituents might have a similar problem when asked to react to a proposal from a firm’s leaders. They may not recognize how their unconscious thoughts and feelings will compel them to act when that proposal becomes a reality in the organization.
Organizational learning experts Chris Argyris and Donald Schon also conclude that the unconscious mind plays a role in explaining the gap between what people say and do. They argue that we have certain mental models, or theories, in our heads that govern how we will act in certain circumstances. Argyris and Schon explain that we actually hold two separate “theories of action” in our brains:
“When someone is asked how he would behave under certain circumstances, the answer he usually gives is his espoused theory of action for that situation. This is the theory of action to which he gives allegiance, and which, upon request, he communicates to others. However, the theory that actually governs his actions is his theory-in-use.”18
To give an example, our espoused theory might be that we should bring difficult issues out in the open when tensions arise at work, and then collaborate to resolve these differences constructively. However, our theory-in-use often involves a set of behaviors intended to avoid embarrassment and confrontation. Argyris and Schon describe these behaviors as defensive routines, which often characterize our theories-in-use. Why does this gap between theories-in-use and espoused theories persist over time? Argyris and Schon argue that individuals typically do not recognize the theories-in-use that govern their actions. Moreover, we remain oblivious to the schism between our espoused theories and theories-in-use. The gap between what we say and what we do stubbornly endures for these reasons.19
Now you understand that discovering your organization’s problems requires more than a few town-hall meetings to ask for employee input. Effective leaders become adept at watching how customers shop, employees work, and competitors behave. They break out of the isolation of the executive suite and “get out and look.” They do not simply “manage by walking around.” They become careful and systematic observers of people, processes, and facilities. They immerse themselves in the everyday contexts in which work is being done and in which consumers buy and use their products. They engage with people on the front lines of organizations, and they get their hands dirty doing some of the real work that must be done to serve customers. Working alongside their employees, they see how things actually get done.
Take David Neeleman, the founder of JetBlue. Neeleman launched a quite successful new airline in an era when most airlines have suffered financial ruin. More recently, he’s moved on to launch an airline startup in Brazil. JetBlue not only generated profits in most years of his tenure as CEO, but it also scored very highly on the airline quality rankings (AQR)—a scoring system that measures everything from on-time arrivals to mishandled baggage and customer complaints. In fact, from 2003 to 2007, JetBlue ranked number one or number two each year on the AQR, even though it experienced an embarrassing week of travel delays in February 2007. The company’s rapid recovery from those troubles enabled it to maintain its high ranking for the year overall.20
How did Neeleman create such a customer-friendly airline? How did he deliver on his promise of exceptional service? One reason may be that he chose to work alongside his frontline employees, and interact directly with his customers, on a regular basis. He never allowed himself to become too distant from the basic process of helping customers enjoy their flights. How did he do it? While on board one of his planes, Neeleman would introduce himself to the passengers over the intercom. Then he would join his flight attendants in providing drink and snack service, in what one journalist described as his “snack and schmooze drill.” Neeleman actually donned an apron with his nickname—“Snack Boy”—as he worked the aisles.21 Neeleman not only had an opportunity to listen to and observe customers on these occasions, but he also interacted closely with his pilots and flight attendants. He could see them in action and speak with them very informally. One crew member explained, “Seeing David is great. He’s so easygoing, and we get to talk.”22
How do leaders become astute observers when they venture out of their offices? For starters, you might adhere to some of the very same principles and techniques used by expert ethnographers (summarized in Table 3.1).23 First, make a firm decision about whether you intend to become a participant-observer. Do you intend to work the aisles, like David Neeleman, or will you sit back and watch? In some cases, you will want to become a participant in the action. At other times, it may be more helpful to remain unobtrusive, perhaps even trying to avoid being noticed.
Disavow yourself of any preconceived notions about your organization or its employees, customers, or competitors. You have to try to wipe the slate clean, no matter how hard that may be. Be careful about even having a precise view of what you are setting out to learn. As Siamack Salari, a marketing research expert, points out, “Ethnographic research is always agenda-less. It’s totally opposed to other forms of research and its big benefit is that it generates insights. It uncovers things you didn’t know you didn’t know about.”24
Practice a technique that researchers call “triangulation.”25 Collect multiple observations from different vantage points. Do not rely simply on what you see; collect artifacts from your visits—whether that be a flyer from the factory bulletin board, one of your competitor’s brochures, or a sign that a local manager created to welcome new shoppers to your stores. Consider bringing along your digital camera, or taking a few photos with your cell phone, if you see something interesting. You may never be able to capture a thought in writing as well as you can by taking a photograph.
Seek out informants wisely. You will often, but not always, do more than observe as you venture into the field; you will speak with a variety of people, often rather informally. Search for the individuals who are most willing to open up to you, to be candid. In many cases, certain people have developed a reputation inside the firm for being straight shooters. Seek them out. Recognize, though, that each person has a limited perspective from his or her own vantage point. Thus, do not rely on a few voices. Speak to people in their own language. In other words, recognize that the way in which you talk with your engineers should be quite different from the conversation you may have with your salespeople. Try to learn the terminology of a local unit, and then speak with them using that vocabulary.26
As you speak with individuals, employ open-ended inquiries, and try to avoid leading questions. Engage in active listening, meaning that you should periodically play back what you are hearing, asking for validation and clarification of your interpretations. Finally, as you take notes, try to record key quotes from your conversations. Keeping track of what you have heard in your employees’ and customers’ own words can be very powerful. Sharing those direct quotes with other executives has tremendous persuasive power.
Throughout these conversations, remember to spend much more time listening than talking. The more airtime you consume, the less opportunity others have to inform you. Speaking precludes learning at times. As one researcher at Ogilvy and Mather, the renowned advertising agency, noted after a trip to study women consuming shampoo in Thai villages: “I learned that if you really want to know what’s going on around you, you just have to shut up and listen.”27
Finally, keep track of what you are observing. Take careful notes, and as you do, make a clear distinction between fact and interpretation. You should jot down your feelings and impressions about various situations, but be sure to distinguish those subjective judgments from the factual evidence. Seek out, and systematically track, the things that surprise or confuse you. As organizational learning expert David Garvin argues, the best observers seek out “anomalies, exceptions, and contradictory evidence.” He points out that Charles Darwin “went so far as to keep a separate record of all observations that contradicted his theory.”28
When you are done with your observations, you should find some time to synthesize what you have learned. If you have partnered with another observer, spend time comparing notes. Explore the differences in your observations and interpretations, and inquire as to why you viewed the same situations quite differently. Finally, develop a concrete list of the problems you spotted and the opportunities for improvement. Then, bounce these ideas off others who did not take part in the observations, to see how they react to what you have learned. Ask them what else they would like to know, and consider what new information-gathering you would like to conduct before moving forward.29
Tom Stemberg, the founder of Staples, believes fervently in the power of firsthand observation and immersive experiences.30 When he served as Staples’ CEO, all new employees, regardless of their position in the organizational hierarchy, spent their first few days at the company working in a retail store. They would stock shelves, operate a cash register, unload incoming shipments, and assist shoppers. Even the most senior hires took part in these activities in their first few weeks at the company. Stemberg also spent a great deal of time in the chain’s stores, and he perused his competitors’ locations on a regular basis. Beyond that, Stemberg took time to observe retailers that did not compete with Staples; he loved learning from Costco, for example. He even spent time visiting firms in other industries. For instance, he once set out to learn about customer service at Mobil, focusing on its Speed Pass Program, which was relatively new at the time.
Stemberg points out one key problem with these visits. When people learned that he was coming, they would alter their behavior. Ethnographers fret over the same problem when they conduct their research. They recognize that their mere presence may distort the subjects’ behavior. Stemberg recounts one such instance:
“This week I was in Pittsburgh and Youngstown, Ohio...When I walked into the next store, in New Kensington, PA, three people approached me. It was too good to be true. I said, ‘I’ve got a funny feeling you were waiting for me.’ The manager there said, ‘Well, I guess we were. We heard you were coming.’ I said, ‘I guess the guy in Youngstown must have called you.’ He said, ‘Yeah, he did, but he didn’t have to—the word was out last night when you got to Uniontown.’”31
The observer’s influence on others’ behavior constitutes a thorny challenge, particularly for a senior executive. People certainly do not act the same way when the boss enters the room. How can leaders deal with this challenge? First, the leader does not have to reveal his or her identity when interacting with certain constituents, such as customers. Individuals should not lie, but they could simply state that they work for the company, without making a big deal of the fact that they actually are one of the top executives at the firm. Second, leaders may use others who are less well known throughout the organization to conduct similar observations, and then spend time comparing notes. That method may be particularly useful when observing internal company operations. The second set of eyes may provide some illuminating insights, if indeed the senior leader’s presence distorted others’ behavior.
Stemberg tells a funny story about the use of another set of eyes. He once asked his mother-in-law to order, and then return, office supplies from the delivery arm of one of his rivals! As a result, he learned a great deal about his competitor’s return policies and procedures.32 Third, leaders can actually take part in the work on the front lines, as Neeleman did at JetBlue. By becoming a participant-observer, Neeleman experienced key activities and interactions for himself. He did not rely strictly on the observations of others. Neeleman made the practice of donning the apron rather commonplace; when such activity becomes routine, the likelihood of distorted behavior declines. He built a rapport with the crew members on the company’s planes as he worked the aisles so that over time, they came to trust him and become more open with him about problems that needed to be addressed. Finally, leaders can check the conclusions from their observations against other data. For instance, did a store visit yield an experience consistent with customer satisfaction surveys for that location? If inconsistencies emerge from that comparison, leaders can sit down with employees to discuss the discrepancies.
This chapter closes with a final word of caution about moving into the field to conduct firsthand observations. Our minds can play games with us. We can convince ourselves that we do not have anything to learn from others. Our existing mental models may prove so strong that we cannot acknowledge or accept a discordant perspective. For instance, our customers may be using our products in an unintended fashion. Their behavior may represent a remarkable revenue growth opportunity, yet we may dismiss the behavior as odd or misinformed. Take, for example, the famous case of Kleenex tissues. The creators originally intended for this product to be used to help women remove their makeup. As it turned out, many men chose to use Kleenex tissues to blow their noses. When executives learned about this behavior, they shrugged it off initially. It took quite some time for managers to accept this alternative use and integrate it into their marketing campaigns.33
Stemberg tells a startling story about the failure to be open to all learning possibilities when observing the competition. Here’s his story:
“Back in 1987 one of the founders of Office Depot was dying. It was tragic. Some venture capitalist was trying to buy the company very cheaply and put in a new CEO. Some of the incumbent investors, many of whom we knew, said to us, ‘Why don’t you just come in and buy this?’ At that time, we could have bought Office Depot for $12 million or $14 million. And so to get an assessment of how the company was doing—we hadn’t been there in awhile—we sent two people down. They rented a convertible and drove around for two days to all the stores, and they reported back that essentially there was no sense in buying those guys because they would be gone by the end of the year: they were so bad, the service was no good, nothing was right. Well, of course, Office Depot has gone on to become the biggest company in the industry.”34
Stemberg recounts a lesson that he learned from Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton about how to derive value from every observation. The legendary merchant loved to scout his competition, and he required his employees to do the same. Walton, though, “would force you to focus on what they did better than you did.”35 He would not allow people to dismiss their observations and rationalize away possible problems that might exist back at Wal-Mart. Walton could find the smallest thing that a rival did better than his firm, even at the most poorly run companies. Put simply, you can spot problems through observation only if you begin by acknowledging that problems always exist, even at the best-run companies. One can always improve. Without that mindset, all the effort of firsthand observation may be futile.
1 Horovitz, B. “Marketers take a close look at your daily routine.” USA Today, April 29, 2007.
2 Ibid.
3 Kroll, L. “A fresh face.” Forbes. July 8, 2002.
4 Lafley, A. G. and R. Charan. (2008). The Game-Changer: How You Can Drive Revenue and Profit Growth with Innovation. New York: Crown Business. p. 49. The authors do a very nice job of describing how Proctor & Gamble jump-started innovation and organic revenue growth during Lafley’s tenure. Lafley describes many of the key initiatives, including Workin’ It and Livin’ It.
5 Horovitz, B. (2007).
6 Mead, M. (1928). Coming of Age in Samoa. New York: Morrow Quill.
7 One of the most accomplished organizational ethnographers is John Van Maanen of the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He wrote a superb book about ethnographic research methods in the 1980s. See Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the Field on Writing Ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8 Gross, D. “Lies, damn lies, and focus groups.” Slate. October 10, 2003. For more on Zaltman’s research, see Zaltman, G. (2003). How Customers Think: Essential Insights into the Mind of the Market. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
9 Tischler, L. (2007). “Every move you make.” Fast Company.
10 Interview with Thomas Kinder, Vice President—Global Market Strategy and Planning, Proctor & Gamble Corporation. I met Mr. Kinder when we each presented at a Bord Bia conference in Ireland (Bord Bia is the Irish Food Agency) in May 2008. Tom and I had the pleasure of talking about Proctor & Gamble’s ethnographic research initiatives over a few Guinness draughts at Johnnie Fox’s pub, located in Glencullen on top of the Dublin mountains—certainly one of the best interview locations I can recall!
11 Kroll, L. (2002).
12 For more on ethnographic marketing, see Mariampolski, H. (2005). Ethnography for Marketers: A Guide to Consumer Immersion. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
13 Loftus, E. (1975). “Leading questions and the eyewitness report.” Cognitive Psychology. 7: 550–572. For more on the remarkable and impactful research of Stanford psychologist Elizabeth Loftus, see Garry, M. and H. Hayne. (2006). Do Justice and Let the Sky Fall: Elizabeth F. Loftus and Her Contributions to Science, Law, and Academic Freedom. Philadelphia: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14 Loftus, E. (1975).
15 Gross, D. (2003). See also Rubin, H. and I. Rubin. (2004). Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
16 Gross, D. (2003).
17 Ibid.
18 Argyris, C. and D. Schon. (1981). Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. p. 7.
19 Ibid.
20 Bowen, B. and D. Hadley. (2007). Airline Quality Rankings. http://aqr.aero/aqrreports/AQR2007full.pdf. Bowen and Hadley publish these airline quality rankings annually. Their methodology is quite thorough, and it provides a fascinating look at the state of a very troubled industry.
21 Peterson, B. (2004). Blue Streak: Inside JetBlue, the Upstart That Rocked an Industry. New York: Penguin Books.
22 Newman, R. (2004). “Preaching JetBlue: How David Neeleman is spreading the gospel of service at the fast-growing airline.” The Chief Executive. October issue.
23 For a useful description of ethnographic research methods, see Genzuk, M. (2003). “A Synthesis of Ethnographic Research.” Occasional Papers Series, Center for Multilingual Research. University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education.
24 Hoare, S. “Big brands turning to Big Brother.” The Daily Telegraph. March 29, 2007.
25 Yin, R. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
26 Understanding the language of an organization is critical, particularly for a new leader who comes from the outside. Robert Nardelli learned this the hard way when he arrived at The Home Depot after many years at General Electric. Unfamiliar with retailing, he made some significant language gaffes in his first few months at the Atlanta home improvement retailer. For instance, he referred to the merchandising organization as the “purchasing group”—a term not looked upon kindly by retail merchants. He also referred to stock-keeping units as “S.K.U.s” rather than “skus”—the term used throughout the retail sector. See Sellers, P. “Home Depot: Exit the builder, enter the repairman.” Fortune. March 29, 2001.
27 Tischler, L. (2007).
28 Garvin, D. (2000). Learning in Action: A Guide to Putting the Learning Organization to Work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. pp. 79–80.
29 IDEO, the leading product-design firm, practices many of the principles of effective observation as it conducts the research required to develop innovative new products. For a wonderful demonstration of the IDEO product-development process in action, see the ABC News Nightline video titled “The Deep Dive,” which aired July 13, 1999. In that program, hosted by Ted Koppel, ABC News chronicles IDEO’s attempts to design a new supermarket shopping cart in just five days. The video provides a remarkable inside look at this highly creative firm. You actually get to see the entire product-development process unfold, from research and brainstorming to the creation of a fully functioning prototype that the designers take to a store to gather feedback. One of the cofounders has written a very good book about innovation at IDEO. See Kelley, T. (2001). The Art of Innovation: Lessons in Creativity from IDEO, America’s Leading Design Firm. New York: Doubleday. Several Harvard case studies also have been written about the firm. See Thomke, S. and A. Nimgade. (2000). “IDEO Product Development.” Harvard Business School Case Study No. 9-600-143; Edmondson, A. and L. Feldman. (2005). “Phase Zero: Introducing New Services at IDEO (A).” Harvard Business School Case Study No. 9-605-069.
30 This section draws upon an article in Inc. magazine. See Gruner, S. (1998). “Spies like us.” Inc. magazine. August issue. It also draws upon my personal experience working at Staples from 1994 to 1996, when Tom Stemberg served as CEO. I had the opportunity to interact with Stemberg on a number of occasions during that time, and I learned a great deal about how he and others studied and analyzed the competition. At that time, Staples believed that every new employee, regardless of whether he was a store associate or senior executive, should begin his employment at the firm by working on the floor of a retail store. Thus, I spent my first week at the firm, after graduating with my MBA from Harvard, stocking shelves, answering shoppers’ questions, and running a cash register at a Staples store in New London, Connecticut. I learned a great deal about Staples’ customers and the store operations from the immersive experience.
31 Gruner, S. (1998).
32 Ibid.
33 Sawyer, K. (2007). Group Genius: The Creative Power of Collaboration. New York: Perseus Books Group.
34 Gruner, S. (1998).
35 Ibid.